Sometimes, what separates the seemingly innocuous from the sinister is the context. At another time and in another situation, Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office V. Narayanasamy could have gotten away with his statement that the Central government was considering making the Comptroller and Auditor General a multimember body. After all, the Centre is sitting on a report by the committee headed by former CAG V.K. Shunglu, which went into the charges of corruption in the conduct of the 2010 Commonwealth Games, recommending such a course of action. But not now, not when the government has been at the receiving end of a series of damning reports by the CAG on 2G spectrum, the Commonwealth Games and coal allocations. After his remark stirred up a national controversy, the Minister did make a feeble effort to distance himself from the news report, saying he was “misquoted” and that he had not specifically replied to any question on the constitution of the CAG. But, by then, he had already set off alarm bells in the ranks of the Opposition, and among anti-corruption activists and the rest of the civil society. Not surprisingly, almost everyone smelt a conspiracy to undermine the independent functioning of the CAG, and interpreted the move as directed at the incumbent, Vinod Rai, whose term is not due to end before 2014.

Whether or not Mr. Narayanasamy intended his remarks as a trial balloon to gauge public opinion, the hostile reaction he has provoked should serve as adequate warning to the government against pushing ahead with any such radical restructuring of the supreme audit institution of India. Indeed, any change in the nature and structure of the CAG is unwarranted in the current context. Whether or not a multimember body is better than a single-member body is open to debate, and any change should be preceded by wide-ranging consultations. An isolated recommendation in one of the reports of a committee is surely no reason to bring about a change that could have far-reaching implications for the CAG. Nothing in the functioning of the current CAG calls for such radical reconstitution. Instead, the government would do well to strengthen India’s premier audit body, allowing it to function with greater autonomy and freedom and with an updated mandate that unambiguously covers public-private partnerships (PPPs) and the use of public monies by non-governmental organisations. If at all there is a case for any change, it is in making the appointment of the CAG more transparent, free from any sort of political considerations. In all else, the government must stay its hand.

The statement made by V.Narayanasamy is truly to check the response and pulse from the other side to dilute the constitutional institution.No doubt making Election commision a multimember body in such a vast country with division of duties cannot be compared with the Issue of CAG .Here it is the public finance usage which is a real test for the executive and so our fathers of constitution gave authority to authorize the issue of money to the legislature and made him a true auditor for that finances unlike that of Britain.So any move to muzzle the constitutional institution like CAG clearly showcases that the institution created a problem for the present Govt and so wants to dilute ,a deed that explains all his reports are true, in a sense.

from:
HAVISH MADDURI

Posted on: Nov 14, 2012 at 20:20 IST

One would have ignored the observation about having a multi-member CAG, had it not been part of the game a weak coalition government at the centre is playing to silence dissent coming from any quarters in order to divert issues and ensure survival for the remaining tenure. This is the price the nation is paying for having in office a CAG who is not afraid to carry on with his mandated responsibilities without checking what line would be acceptable to North Block.
Last month while discussing with RBI Governor the amendment to Banking Regulations Act 1949 needed to give RBI the powers- to supersede the board, to authorize the acquisition of shares beyond five per cent, as well as powers for consolidated supervision- and dispensation necessary to deal with companies that entered the banking sector FM is reported to have asked RBI officials whether the banking regulator could be given these powers without an amendment to the B R Act.
These are disturbing signals.

from:
M G Warrier

Posted on: Nov 14, 2012 at 12:35 IST

sir,I just want to point out to you that the present election commission was made into a body of three now in place of single member body due to the outspoken then CEC, shri T.S.Seshan which was not liked by the then GOVT?!

from:
c.g.venkatesan

Posted on: Nov 14, 2012 at 10:32 IST

To me this whole idea of having "a pool" of CAG's is adsurd. CAG is a constitutional body just like The supreme court of India and The election commission of India, If the government feels there should be more than one CAG to prevent vested interests, why should it not feel the same about the other two bodies ? because having more than chief justice to The supreme court could lead to a chaos. This is a move not to prevent vested interests but rather to encourage them when one of the members of "the pool" of CAG's will always be supporting the ruling party or whoever appointed them in first place. there will be no final report or verdict as biased opinions from each member would destroy the very purpose of the body. so the government would be best advised to keep such ideas aside and focus on more pertinent issues.

from:
Ramkumar

Posted on: Nov 14, 2012 at 09:33 IST

UPA government is displaying its arrogance and is exhibiting its intolerance to criticism which makes Congress unfit for a meaningful role in a democracy. Even in advanced democracies like USA or Britain, so much is poured on governments, but they never think of cutting down the wings of constitutional bodies like Judiciary, Election Commission etc just because their misdeeds are exposed.

from:
MVJRao

Posted on: Nov 14, 2012 at 08:22 IST

An excellent editorial. The process of selecting a successor for the post of CAG should not only be transparent,but, should convince the people that the right choice has been made, as is done in the UK and USA. That means that limiting the choice within the narrow spectrum of the IAS should be ethically reviewed. Those from the IAAS should be considered as a first choice.

from:
Soundararajan Srinivasa

Posted on: Nov 13, 2012 at 22:20 IST

shunglu commission which went into allegations of irregularities in Asian games administration recommended a three members in place of a single member (CAG) to avoid any arbitrariness in the audit report. The commission was appointed due the present incumbant came up with report on three scams viz 2 G spectrum allocation, Asian games and coalgate.this was done by single person. By making the audit with three persons perhaps the report comes out only if three member agrees. This will delay the report. and the power of the present CAG is divided among three.this is very similar to what happened to Election commission. Opinion is divided now that one person in the government is announcing that this recommendation would be implemented while the other is reporting that government has yet to seize the issue. This sort of responses is only an indication that government would finally settle for three member and thereby clip the powers of the single member (the present CAG)ICIcI Bank

from:
Edakkat Sivasankaran

Posted on: Nov 13, 2012 at 21:47 IST

The editorial makes a very important point. The government will destroy the heirarchy of the government institution by chaning CAG. These institutions are sacred and any change as you suggest should be preceded by extensive discussions.

from:
vishwanath

Posted on: Nov 13, 2012 at 19:26 IST

Dear sir,

Still some of the Government departments and organisations created by them are not covered by C&AG Audit. I suggest that all Government departments must appoint auditors, wherever they are required to appoint Chartered Accountants as auditors, only through C&AG to ensure transparency in appointments and independence of auditors.

I also suggest that all large listed companies with turnovers of more than Rs 1000 Cr or public holding of more than Rs 50 Cr.(including public deposits) should be subject to C&AG audit. This will ensure proprietary audit of deployment of public funds.

from:
B Vijaya Kumar

Posted on: Nov 13, 2012 at 18:42 IST

The Congress mandarins running the UPA2 led union ministry are now at the receiving end following the damning CAG reports on several scams viz., commonwealth games, 2G spectrum and Coalgate, to name a few. The chairperson of UPA2 and her coterie are really at a loss and are yet to make a concrete strategy to face the electorate during the 2014 general elections. The current situation is such that if Loksabha elections is held right now then the Congress will not be able to secure 50% of the seats that it is now currently holding in Loksabha. The situation is really grim for the Congress party. The Congress leadership is now scared of Vinod Rai, the CAG. No wonder, the party is now trying to put pressure on Vinod Rai by advocating through MOS/PMO to make the CAG a multimember body like that of another constitution body, the election commission. The present union government is playing with fire because it must remember that Vinod Rai, has the blessings of millions and million of Indians.

from:
Abhijit Lahiri

Posted on: Nov 13, 2012 at 18:22 IST

We are blessed with three independent institutions : (i) Independent Judiciary (ii) Independent CAG and above all (III) an independent,forthright and dedicated media. You have alerted the government at the right time. Any attempt to make CAG toothless will be resisted by public at large and will be counter productive for UPA II, particularly congress. CAG, by its contribution to anti-corruption effort, is indistrucitble and the government which tries to compromise its autonomy will never b e forgiven.

from:
Prof K C Mehta

Posted on: Nov 13, 2012 at 17:54 IST

Editorials can afford to pontificate since they do not really have to take a call hands-on and see the action points through. Look at the way this CAG added zeros at the end of a couple of integers and pictured the government in bad light. He has not been objective at all in calculating presumptive losses. A person trained in audit with a pedigree like IA&AS would not have done this since he will not have a political axes to grind. He cut short the processes of fine tuning the report by several rounds of discussion merely to sensationalise in an ambiance of Team Anna's agitation to portray himself as the person who will show where the Aegean stables need cleaning. The government should appoint outstanding officers from the various audit and account services instead of the IAS who cannot sift fact from fiction.

from:
R.Sundaram

Posted on: Nov 13, 2012 at 16:43 IST

Perhaps the Cong. has just used Narayanasamy to get a feel of the nations reaction to its uncontrollable urge to contain the CAG.

from:
Ramanujam

Posted on: Nov 13, 2012 at 15:21 IST

The most important thing here is to understand the intent of the government behind the willingness to amend the working of CAG. There is nothing wrong in making amendments as long as they are done in order to initiate reforms that tend to improve the efficiency and accountability of public authorities. Government's move is seen from suspicion because CAG had been quite instrumental recently in exposing some large scale scams involving misutilization of public funds and loss to exchequer involving some highly placed public authorities whether its 2G spectrum allocation or Coal block allocation. If the current recommendation regarding the change in CAG functionary is inspired by the intent to control the powers of an independent constitutional body, it will be hazardous for the basic spirit of democracy and public accountability of government executives.

from:
Dhawal Mehra

Posted on: Nov 13, 2012 at 14:04 IST

Very biased editorial- not meeting the standards of the Hindu. It fails to evaluate the pros and cons of a multi-member CAG body, before arriving at a conculsion based on opinions of politicians.

There needs to be quality in the findings of CAG, especially with regards to the numerical assumptions instead of coming up with vague, presumptive values. Yes, agreed the appointment of CAG needs more transparence.

from:
Jeril

Posted on: Nov 13, 2012 at 12:14 IST

It was rightly pointed out by someone that there is no need to strengthen CAG by making it a multimember body when it is already helped out by its deputies and is not carrying out its job singly.Also,what is raising doubts is the timing of decision.

from:
Shayesta Nazir

Posted on: Nov 13, 2012 at 11:13 IST

CAG is the constitutional authority and it should have full powers to look into all aspects of government transactions. One major concern with regard to the government administration, of all the Central, State and local self governments, is lack of transparency in government expenditure and revenue. Citizens wish to know more about the way in which the expenditure is incurred but have no way to find out how much of the expenditure is just wasteful. Similarly, citizens are aware of the wide use of discretionary powers used ( often misused) by the government officials and citizens are simply helpless watchers. If office of the CAG is strengthened with modern tools of data management and is able to catch the guilty at the initial stage, when the losses to the exchequer can be minimized, it would be the right step forward.

from:
Narendra M Apte

Posted on: Nov 13, 2012 at 10:57 IST

The government should make public all the documents of CAG REGARDING all the scams to gain public faith and confidence.

from:
saurabh shubham

Posted on: Nov 13, 2012 at 08:54 IST

A quite complete Editorial; it is such a pleasure to read The Hindu.

from:
D Mahapatra

Posted on: Nov 13, 2012 at 08:00 IST

Your piece on changes in CAG is confusing at best and outright opportunistic. The PM statement that there is no compelling reason to change it in response the CPI and Advanis request removes all discussion. Furthermore, the process of changing the composition of CAG is a lengthy process which requires Parliamentary approval. So where is the substance of your concern and comment. I expect a more intelligent and informed editorial from a paper of your calibre.